By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
shikamaru317 said:

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the issue with cosmetic microtransactions in a multiplayer game, as long as they're not randomized (aka lootboxes). Multiplayer games require ongoing support from the developers for at least a year after release usually, sometimes years plural. The devs/publishers have to pay for that post-release content development somehow, you can't just expect a publisher who cares about their bottom line to support a multiplayer game with all free DLC for years after release, that is years of paying a probably 40+ person DLC development team $70k+ per year per person to develop that DLC. Multiplayer games used to have paid map packs and such, but the industry has moved away from those to free maps because they realized that paid map packs split the playerbase too much and made it harder for those who owned the maps to find matches on those new paid maps. Instead, multiplayer developers now support the development of free maps and modes with paid cosmetics, which are almost always also available through in-game means. That is fine with me and most multiplayer gamers.

So yeah, I just don't see the issue with Microsoft putting cosmetic microtransactions into Halo Infinite, a game which they are planning to support with free maps and modes for the entire 9th generation (we're talking probably 6 years of DLC support). 343 even already confirmed that all cosmetics will also be available to earn in-game.

Your 40 man dev team would cost 2.8 million. If the game sells 5 million copies and just 6% of the playerbase (300,000 people) spend just $10 per year then they've recouped their losses + a $200,000 profit. If 12% of the playerbase spends $10 a year they've more than doubled their investment. Most businesses are golden if they make $1.10 in revenue for every $1 they spend. A profit margin of 200% or more is obscene, and evidence that somebody is being taken for a ride.

Edit: Also a 40 man dev team sounds like too big of a staff to me. I bet it could be done with as little as 10-20 people on staff. And you wouldn't even need veteran game devs making 70K+ a year. Just new hires.

Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - on 18 November 2020